Court: Juries may decide sentences for juvenile lifers

The way Michigan handles sentencing of juveniles convicted of murder could undergo a drastic change following a ruling by a state appellate court that held that juveniles facing life in prison without parole have a right to ask that their fate be decided by a jury, rather than a judge.

Defense attorneys welcomed the ruling by the Michigan Court of Appeals, saying it will allow them to argue to a potentially sympathetic jury not to send a juvenile client to prison for life, while prosecutors say it will create a procedural nightmare, particularly if it eventually applies to decades-old cases, in which new juries would have to be seated and the cases, in essence, retried.

In the ruling, published Thursday regarding the 2011 murder conviction of then 17-year-old Tia Skinner, the appeals court said the “the Sixth Amendment mandates that juveniles convicted of homicide who face the possibility of a sentence of life without parole have a right to have their sentence determined by a jury.”

The 2-1 ruling, which will likely be appealed to the state Supreme Court, applies only to cases involving juveniles in which the penalties include life in prison without parole.

Skinner of Yale was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of her father by a St. Clair County jury and sentenced to life in prison by a judge. But in Thursday’s opinion, the higher court said Skinner has a right to have a jury decide her sentence and that in order to sentence her to life in prison without parole, prosecutors must prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that her offense reflects “irreparable corruption.”

When she is again sentenced, this time by a jury, it will be a first in Michigan. Unlike federal courts and some other states, juries in Michigan decide guilt or innocence, but judges set sentences.

“It’s a super, super interesting decision. This is forging a new path in Michigan,” said Valerie Newman, an attorney at the state appellate defender office who represents several juvenile lifers, adding that it will be “new territory for everybody.”

Among Newman’s clients is Ihab Maslamani, who, with Robert Taylor, was convicted, sentenced and re-sentenced to life in prison without parole in the 2009 abduction and murder of Matthew Landry of Chesterfield Township. Maslamani and Taylor were 17 and 16, respectively, when the crime occurred.

Issue isn’t an easy one

Michigan has been grappling with the issue of juvenile lifer sentencing since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that sending children to prison for life is unconstitutional, noting that children have immature brains, can be easily influenced and don’t fully understand the consequences of their actions. While the nation’s highest court banned mandatory life sentences for juveniles, it left open the door for the sentencing of life without parole if the juvenile was one of “irreparable corruption.” So judges — and now in Michigan, juries — can take into consideration extraordinary circumstances that would merit a life sentence. The court does not define “irreparable corruption.”

Michigan has more than 300 juveniles in its prisons who are serving life sentences without parole. Following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court determined that the federal ruling did not apply retroactively to those already serving life sentences. That decision is being appealed.

Defense attorney Robyn Frankel is representing Jenny Pruitt, sent to prison for life in 1992 at age 16 after she was involved in the murder of a neighbor. Frankel predicts that the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately will decide that the law is, in fact, retroactive and that a jury will someday revisit Pruitt’s sentence.

And that, Frankel said, will be a good thing.

“It will allow a full-scale mitigation hearing and 12 regular people will be able to look at our clients, their backgrounds, their maturity,” she said. “Judges, people in the system, attorneys, we’re more calloused, and we don’t see things like the rest of the world, we lose the ability to recognize what those long sentences really mean to somebody.”

But Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper predicted that the ruling — particularly if it eventually applies retroactively to older cases — will cause serious logjams, as prosecutors are forced to piece together cases that are 20, 30 or 40 years old.

“It’s going to make it very cumbersome,” Cooper said. “It will require that we completely reconstruct cases going forward.”

St. Clair County Prosecutor Mike Wendling said, “We disagree with the ruling of the Court of Appeals. We are pursuing our options to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.”

Wendling said the previous sentences in the Skinner case of life in prison without parole “were valid.”

He said “victims in our system deserve a level of certainty and closure. They also have rights in the system,” adding that the appeals court ruling will put them through this “over and over again.”

What could happen next

The ruling will be in play very quickly — this week — in Macomb County.

On Tuesday, Mark Cowans, 19, of Warren has a sentencing hearing in the death of his cellmate at the Macomb County jail last year.

He was convicted of first-degree murder by a jury in the death of Ryan Hagerman, 34, also of Warren. Cowans was 17 at the time, and life in prison without parole was not an automatic sentence after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

Hagerman died in June 2014 of injuries from the May 2014 assault at the jail in Mt. Clemens. Authorities didn’t see the assault as it was happening, but the incident was caught on tape.

Cowan’s attorney, Steve Kaplan — a former prosecutor in Macomb and Wayne counties — said his client will waive a new jury being empaneled to decide if he should serve life in prison without parole. In this instance, Kaplan said, given the particulars of the case and that a new jury would not know all the facts of the case, “the judge is more likely than a jury to extend leniency.”

“It is our intent to let the judge decide,” Kaplan said, adding that he believes the penalty should be less than life.

Kaplan said the appeals court ruling “is a novel issue for trial lawyers who are not accustomed to arguing penalties to juries. Attorneys are prohibited from mentioning penalties to juries.” He said he believes the ruling will change the strategy of lawyers in court, such as a defense attorney trying to get more sympathy for a defendant who would be, if convicted, sentenced by the same jury.

Newman agreed, saying the ruling “has the potential of having a dramatic effect on the way the proceedings are conducted.” What may have been two days for a sentencing hearing, for example, may take longer with a jury.

“I think it’s gonna change the whole tenor or what goes on,” said Newman, who is appealing Maslamani’s sentence — a case subject to this new ruling because it is under appeal at the Michigan Court of Appeals.